A second viewing of Into Darkness

Sorry to hear it doesn't work for you. I thought she provided more of a moral voice, very similar to McCoy's role in TOS, as well as her relationship with Spock.

I especially loved her negotiating with the Klingons. I thought it was very well done.

He wants to engage in a preemptive strike to defeat the Federation's enemy-it makes sense to me.

 

Marcus motivation doesn't make any sense. In response to some minor provocation, he sets up a 'false flag' and is ready to unleash a gargantuan war machine against the Klingons and in doing so he takes a positive glee in slowly destroying the Enterprise.

Marcus is very poorly written; he's a very unStarfleet caricature - even within the context of delinquent Starfleet Admirals. He's just another one of these one dimensional homicidalists that are crowbarred into this film.

 

Uhura is in the movie to supply emotional support to the guy with no emotions by yelling at him for not caring enough about her when he just almost died. That's how it looks to me. Her part with the klingons was nice, but ultimately pointless.

The specifics of his plan make no sense to me. First off, he thinks he can win a war with just one ship? Or does he have a fleet of those things? I don't think he can win the war with one shot of torpedoes at the Klingons. Was Khan escaping & blowing up section 31 & going to Kronos a part of his plan? What was he going to do if that didn't happen? Was he going to load torpedoes onto the Enterprise & order kirk to shoot at the klingons anyway? What if the more level-headed Pike had lived & Kirk had died?

He needed some pretext, and it seems like he radically altered his plans (whatever they were) at the last minute. Why did he need the Enterprise at all? He could've just used the Vengeance to attack with torpedoes. His old plan presumably involved the Vengeance, but his new plan didn't because he doesn't show up until after Kirk fails to start a war. Maybe he wanted a federation ship to be destroyed to increase support for war. Maybe he wanted Kirk to be the 'fall guy'. But then he is forced to blow up the Enterprise himself under the pretense that Kirk is a traitor. And he was clearly on record ordering the Enterprise off on its mission. And there is still no war at the end of the movie.

If he had succeeded in blowing up the Enterprise & framing them, the Klingons still haven't been involved & there is still no pretense for war. It all amounts to a whole lot of nothing. When you have to speculate this much about the bad guys plan, it smacks of sloppy writing. Maybe the Klingons could've been more than a theoretical off-screen threat too. That would've been nice. (I know we see some klingon bikers once....on their own homeworld, but that doesn't really set them up as a huge threat.)

 

Um, quick point-Spock is not a guy with no emotions. The whole point of Spock, from Nimoy to Qunito, is that he keeps his emotions under tight control. There was a miscommunication as to his nature and that needed to be addressed. Based upon Spock's discussion in STID I would say that the problem has been going on for a year and it reached its head with Spock deciding that he wanted to die in the volcano.

That's how it looked to me.

I'm going to try and address your points, but, if I miss one, I apologize.

First of all, I think Marcus' plan was to launch the torpedoes, causing the Klingons to come looking for the culprit. The Enterprise would have been the preferred ship as it would be the flag ship and its destruction would garner support for a larger ship design, such as the Dreadnought class that Marcus had already proposed-he has the model already done in his office.

I don't think that Marcus needed just the war, but also the support of Starfleet to approve the Vengeance and have Marcus lead the fleet in a war against the Klingons. I don't think he just wanted the Vengeance for it, but wanted it as the new flagship in the war effort.

Marcus was on record of ordering the Enterprise, sure. But, once the Enterprise was destroyed (either by Klingons or Marcus) he could spin it however he wanted.

I think that Khan's attack moved Marcus' timetable up and he proceeded a bit more rapidly than planned.

I think Marcus' larger point is that Starfleet is unprepared to deal with the threats out there, with the Narada cementing his war-hawk view. I think he wants to attack the Klingons before they become a "huge threat" like the Narada was. He is irrational and illogical but that's the point. He's the extreme position that Kirk could become if he allows his inner darkness to consume him.

 

These are my top two complaints of the movie as well, with the first one being so jarring that it yanked me out of immersion (the same way the Vengeance yanked the Enterprise out of warp!). In particular, I was paying attention to Kirk's own subplot of his maturity arc, where he goes from reckless, irresponsible captain to gradually becoming a more conscious captain with more foresight, and his willingness to sacrifice himself to protect his crew was the apex of that arc. Hell, at one point, HE was the guy said, "Hey, can we focus on getting the job done here?" The younger Kirk of ST09 would probably relish in the gossip, but not this time. So far so good, and it worked as a nice indictment of his childish arrogance in ST09.

And then... THAT scene happened, and suddenly for a few moments, I forgot all about that hard work and flipped back to an iconic moment that had turned into an internet meme. Ugh. A movie is supposed to pull you in for its whole runtime, not jolt you out of it with a few breadcrumbs.

I liked the film overall, but not nearly as much as its predecessor.

As for Khan, I fully agree -- there was nothing that could have been intrinsically Khan in that character, unlike the other reboot/recasts. John Harrison could have been any other augment and it would've been fine. Latching on Khan's name seemed like an afterthought -- we didn't get much of the charming, commanding presence from Space Seed nor the calculated eloquence of TWOK, though somehow Cumberbatch was expected to come up with all those traits without much to actually show for it.

Ultimately, what puts the movie in the Approved column for me was the layers of the villainous plot with modern day topics (which we don't see much in the entire movie canon anyway), the speed of the action, and the aforementioned Kirk subplot. To me, it's an average Trek film at best, though an average Trek film is still an above average film in general.

 

not to mention that it's basically the only scene in the whole movie where the aftermath of what had happened to Vulcan, and Spock, was somehow finally addressed (hello continuity, because, after all, this was supposed to be still a sequel of the first movie) and you get a glimpse of what it means for Spock to be a vulcan (which goes beyond the 'no feelings just logic' stereotype) and the fact that, actually, vulcans feel deeply than the humans. I could argue that it's the only personal scene in the whole movie that is just about Spock, one of the supposed protagonists you know, and his own story. If you remove that (or the first movie for what matter), he's back to being just the nerdy friend of hero and a sidekick for Kirk (I wonder if this actually is the problem some people, especially Kirk fans, have with S/U and why they resent Spock having a life outside of Kirk so much, but have no issues with having more than one dynamic with and for Kirk)
Kirk being there also made him learn a tiny valuable lesson about the fact that some members of his crew are not human (or not just human) and, perhaps, him whining about Spock essentially being himself was detrimental to his attempts to be his friend, not to mention him possibly getting a reminder of what the other guy was going through, which he seems to completely not take into consideration even though one presumes this is what a friend would do (and, again, maybe he shouldn't have even asked Spock to participate to either mission due to the possible still lingering psychological repercussions of the vulcan diaspora on him)
Uhura also saved both Spock and Kirk in the end.. and she is the one who made the little skype chat between Spock and Spock Prime possible when communications were, courtesy of admiral Marcus, completely down between the enterprise and .. the galaxy.
She and McCoy also were the ones who helped Spock tricking Khan about the torpedoes, and she also co-piloted the shuttle with Sulu at the beginning, and was the one who monitored and then told Spock through the captain that his device in the volcano got successfully activated and the planet was safe. Because even when her man was possibly dying and she was terrified, she still did her job and she didn't even run to the transport pad with Kirk and McCoy, she asked the captain if her man was alive from the bridge while giving her report. (What were McCoy and Scotty doing on the bridge beside worrying for Spock, again?). But all these things are irrelevant after all, the rest of the secondary characters did all this super interesting stuff and were so useful for the plot...

I wonder if things would 'look' differently for ancient had Uhura been 'Uhuro' and the relationship with Spock was just another dudebro dynamic to add the the list..

sure, when you have a franchise like trek, where the story is set in a futuristic context and where humans interact with other alien species/races, how crazy for the writers to try to show the different interpersonal relationships between those different characters, and try to imagine how society would be in such scenario.
Clearly, turning it all into a monastery and ostensibly keep everything 'platonic' is the only way to go and the most interesting and realistic course of action..
and of course, the 'dudebro' dynamics between men are never enough but the ONE different kind of relationship (for a change) is off topic and unnecessary..

btw, Uhura also acts as a friend to Kirk (and, God forbid me, their dynamic actually was far more believable to me than even the friendship between K/S, anyway. )
The Kirk/Uhura/Spock trio is not a triangle, it's 3 characters showing 3 different kinds of interpersonal relationships: friendship between guys, friendship between a man and a woman, and a romantic relationship between two people who happen to be in love despite the fact that one is a half vulcan/half human hybrid and the other is human.

 

Marcus' motivation to start a war with the Klingons because of Nero's destruction of Vulcan doesn't make sense. Now if it was false flag event with the Romulans, that would make sense.

Maybe the comics had something to explain why he felt the Klingons were the threat. Something else I don't like with the new production team. They try to fix their films plot holes in the comics. I don't read comics. Maybe they're trying to squeeze too much in the 2hr+ films.

 

I was being flippant for the sake of brevity when I said Spock had no emotions, I shouldn't do that on a Trek board I guess.

The mere fact that we are forced to speculate about stuff like this is evidence of sloppy writing. (See the Star Wars prequels for numerous examples of this)

The film fails to show Klingons doing their raids or whatever it was they were up to that got Marcus all angry. Did they kill someone close to him? Maybe Marcus should've actually BEEN a Vulcan, that would've tied in nicely. They also could've easily swapped the Klingons for Romulans & the plot would've made more sense because Nero was Romulan. I could easily see Marcus deciding to take out the Romulans, but the Klingons? It's just weak plotting to not show ANY Klingon shenanigans at all.

 

I think it is as simple as "We kill them before they kill us." The Klingons were hurt by the Narada's attack as well, so opportunity was pretty good.

I agree that it could be better explained, but hardly ruins the film for me. I think Marcus is actually a very interesting character.

 

STID is a movie that's not worth a deep analysis of its character's motivations.

It's a dumb movie. The story is a vehicle for working in as much action and references to old Trek as possible.

 

Respectfully, I must disagree.

I get that different films affect other people, and that's fine. If you don't like it, I understand and respect that point of view.

But, that doesn't make this film not worth analyzing. Most films are, if nothing else but an example of current society.

 

I'm saying the character's motivations aren't worth analyzing on a deep level, as well as the intricacies of the story as whole. This is Star Trek: The Fast & The Furious. A big dumb action movie meant for a quick cheap thrill and not much else.

That doesn't mean the film's place in ST history, or the direction it took Trek in, or it's reception, or the thought process behind its making ect. ect. isn't worth analysis and discussion. That stuff is certainly more interesting than the movie itself.

 

Sorry you feel that way. I think it is an interesting character piece, carrying Kirk's arc to serious conclusion, rather than glossing over ST 09's events.

I get that people call it a "big dumb movie" but I'll never understand that point. I watched big dumb action films in the same year and I can at least rewatch STID and analyze the characters, versus watching bullet proof super heroes in Russia

The social commentary and character development stand out to me.

As per usual, just my opinion and YMMV, etc, etc.

 

Because if there's one thing that's really hard to buy in a Star Trek movie, it's the proposition that the Klingons might be a big rival power the Federation worries about going to war with.

 

This is how I feel.

It is the most interesting Star Trek has been since The Undiscovered Country and TNG seasons three and four.

 

Good comment. I think the writers did put a genuine effort into making the Kirk and Pike relationship a strong one but they then seemed to just give up and get lazy after that, handing it over to the FX department to carry the film whilst they went off to get an early pizza and talk Star Wars.

It wouldn't have taken much to give some background as to why Marcus is so pathological. A few lines of dialogue. Or made him a little more conflicted before he mugs the Enterprise which would be a credible trait for a maverick Starfleet Admiral and a misguided patriot. The writers just got too lazy and gave us a crude, one dimensional caricature who enjoys killing his Starfleet colleagues en-mass. I suppose we should be grateful that Khan got at least one scene of character development. Enriching these characters would not have taken too much effort. That they didn't, was 100% unnecessary laziness.

And the Kirk death scene. Flipping the roles between Kirk and Spock and rerunning the TWOK death scene in a way that was inferior to the original, lacking any emotional depth whatsoever, again, more writing laziness.

People tell me this was a new film. I don't see it. It was combination of Fast and Furious as you say and some mangled scenes from the 80s. And bar some fresh interplay between Kirk and Pike and not forgetting the dazzling FX, there was nothing conspicuously new about this film.

 

The great Captain Kirk saying he's scared and crying has no emotional depth? Spock crying, helpless to aid him and seeing his suffering, knowing what he's feeling because of his mind meld with Pike, lacks depth? I know the scene sparks some controversy among fans, but IMO, it was very well written and wrenching to see these two part before they could even start to achieve all Spock Prime said they were destined to do together.

 

I'm trying really hard to follow these remarks but the "mindless action film" argument really doesn't make sense to me. I think that such a label kills any discussion because it just boxes the film and demands it do better.

STID had an interesting social commentary, and Kirk's arc was more enjoyable than most ST characters for me. I can understand Kirk, Spock, Pike, Marcus and Khan and all have an interesting complexity to them that is not exposited but inferred by their actions.

Kirk's death scene, for me, is sold by Pine's performance. He's scared and afraid, no longer cocky and no longer impulsive. He is defiant to the last, and recognizing the need for personal sacrifice. He understands Spock's choice in the volcano, even as Spock realizes Kirk's choice to not let him die.

STID's pacing may make getting in to the characters more difficult, but that doesn't it isn't there.

 

Zero emotional depth to these scenes, yes. I find these scenes to be a ridiculous and mismanaged recapitulation of the 80s quite frankly. Quinto and Pine look comical and it all left me wholly underwhelmed. Both Kirk and Spock are youngsters who don't really know each other; I wasn't persuaded by all these melodramatics.

 

Now that you mention it, we never really got that sort of development for the TNG movies. Each one had Picard starting over in some sense. The one that comes closest is First Contact, and that's only because it references a previous TV story.

We got that in TOS between II-IV and VI for Kirk, Spock, and, to a lesser extent, McCoy. And other franchises rarely follow up with their central protagonists when it comes to character growth (character history yes, but not necessarily growth).